Revision as of 05:24, 16 October 2016

Students need to have installed and programmed unit tests with GoogleTest. They should also know how to run a coverage analyzer and interpret its results. Intermediate knowledge of Git version control is required.

Learning Objectives

Students should write unit tests and use a coverage analysis tool to identify test cases they may be missing

Directions:

Students:

Overview

Your job is to test the GoalUndo class thoroughly so that developers can verify that it is working correctly and have regression tests for when the code is changed during maintenance. That means that your job is not only to verify that the current solution code is working, but that any implementation of the existing functions work as described in the documentation.

Set the upstream remote in case the instructor needs to give you changes to the code during the exam

Working within a new branch, add unit tests that thoroughly test the functionality as described in the documentation

Use your judgment -- based on what you learned about testing thoroughly -- to decide when you have written sufficient tests to be confident that any correct implementation will pass your tests and that any incorrect implementation will fail.

Once you are done testing, push your changes into your fork (keeping it in your branch)

Submit the url and branch name of the branch on your fork with your tests

Make sure you have only pushed changes to the GoalUndoTest.cpp file. No other files should be changed on your GitHub fork. Any commits to your fork after the deadline will be considered late.

Instructors:

Make your own local clone of the GoalUndo repository and change the code so that it will work as documented in some cases but not in others (such as changing conditional operators or types of control structures). To grade each student, fetch the student's fork and then merge with the changes you made to inject intentional errors into the code. Run the student's tests and confirm that tests fail where they should be testing the functionality broken by the errors you introduced.

Deliverables:

A fork of the GoalUndo repository, with added tests

Assessment:

Grading Rubric

10% did you follow the instructions accurately?
20% did you demonstrate recommended practices with git and GitHub?
20% were unit tests written and formatted following recommended practices?
30% how thoroughly did you test the existing code?
20% do your tests verify that each function acts as documented as regression tests?

Criteria

Level 1 (poor)

Level 2 (fair)

Level 3 (excellent)

Instructions (10%)

Instructions to fork the repo, only commit the test file, and submit the url were not followed

Some instructions were not followed precisely, such as committing unnecessary files

Instructions were followed accurately and precisely

Version Control (20%)

Several mistakes shown in demonstrating ability to fork, commit progress, and pushing to remote (forked) repository

Minor mistakes shown in demonstrating ability to fork, commit progress, and pushing to remote (forked) repository, such as only committing once or forgetting to push local changes to the remote